Graffiti Building at 12th and Wood

[DCnPhilly]

Post Brothers Apartments is really doing a number gutting the graffiti building at 12th and Wood, so much so that they've attracted the canned response from a local union. No inflatable rat yet though. It does look like they've outsourced a bulk of their protest to some of the neighborhood's homeless. Oh, irony.

[fiveomar]

Post Brothers Apartments is really doing a number gutting the graffiti building at 12th and Wood, so much so that they've attracted the canned response from a local union. No inflatable rat yet though. It does look like they've outsourced a bulk of their protest to some of the neighborhood's homeless. Oh, irony.

When will unions learn that their days of having a labor monopoly are over (except for public service unions)?

[DCnPhilly]

The ones working on the building didn't seem too concerned.

[eldondre]

The old Goldtex textiles factory, on 12th Street near Wood, between Vine and Callowhill streets, has been empty and eroding for years, an enormous eyesore to area residents and merchants but an irresistible draw for vandals and squatters...The brothers, who own Post Brothers Apartments, plan to gut it and renovate it into 160 upscale rental apartments. Although the sale went through just a month ago, work is already under way.

Workers have rousted the squatters who laid claim to the property in recent years and have begun shoring up the dilapidated tower. Construction is expected to start in about six months, with the goal of opening in two years, according to the company.

Read more: Blighted building to become high-end apartments | Philadelphia Daily News | 11/18/2010

[Insoluble]

Thanks for the link eldondre (and uhh, you too spam bot). I'm glad this project has been progressing so smoothly. It's going to be a huge boost to the area. I think the loft district/Chinatown North/Eraserhood is going to see a huge boom once the economy picks up. It just needs a few more similar developments to reach a critical mass.

[phillyaggie]

Excellent! This is very close to the foot of the abandoned Reading Viaduct. More new people in that area could only mean that hopefully the Reading Viaduct can be turned into Philly's version of the NYC's Highline Park. And Philly's apartment vacancy rates are so low that the city really does need a lot more new units on the market. This is perfect development at perfect time and in perfect location!

[desolate]

Excellent! This is very close to the foot of the abandoned Reading Viaduct. More new people in that area could only mean that hopefully the Reading Viaduct can be turned into Philly's version of the NYC's Highline Park. And Philly's apartment vacancy rates are so low that the city really does need a lot more new units on the market. This is perfect development at perfect time and in perfect location!

How much is it going to cost the taxpayer for the ity to make this area able to support large scale residency?

and how much in city coffers will be diverted from struggling existing areas of the city so a developer can cash in on said property?

[phillyaggie]

How much is it going to cost the taxpayer for the ity to make this area able to support large scale residency?

and how much in city coffers will be diverted from struggling existing areas of the city so a developer can cash in on said property?

I was under the impression that this is a private development. It isn't?

More private development in that area could pump private dollars and new investment there. Why is everything have to be led by city? As for the Reading Viaduct, I think currently it's owned by a private company (?) and not the city. Its redevelopment could be done in some mix of public-private partnership and dollars. Indeed, a major public amenity in that neighborhood would benefit private developers there--that's the case with any public space in any city. Should cities just not fund any public spaces or amenities for fear of making some private developers rich off of it? How about a funding mechanism such as a TIF which ensures the city gets back its investment in terms of future (and higher) tax revenue streams from a TIF area?

We're talking about redoing a large section of the city and that would benefit not just that neighborhood but the overall city in terms of having a major new amenity accessible to all. Not to mention raising the tax base.

[Malloy]

Views are incredible from over there. Lets see how they price it!

[eldondre]

Views are incredible from over there. Lets see how they price it!

yep, you're also a ten minute walk to the terminal...if you cook.

[desolate]

I was under the impression that this is a private development. It isn't?

More private development in that area could pump private dollars and new investment there. Why is everything have to be led by city? As for the Reading Viaduct, I think currently it's owned by a private company (?) and not the city. Its redevelopment could be done in some mix of public-private partnership and dollars. Indeed, a major public amenity in that neighborhood would benefit private developers there--that's the case with any public space in any city. Should cities just not fund any public spaces or amenities for fear of making some private developers rich off of it? How about a funding mechanism such as a TIF which ensures the city gets back its investment in terms of future (and higher) tax revenue streams from a TIF area?

We're talking about redoing a large section of the city and that would benefit not just that neighborhood but the overall city in terms of having a major new amenity accessible to all. Not to mention raising the tax base.

1. abandoned building at low price goes on the market.
2. speculator buys property, sells units. Walks away.

3. City is left to fund, with taxes, all the things to make the new residents happy.

4. Money is relocated to suport new whiney, organized residents.

See Matt Ruben of Spring Garden for people who mov into industrial areas then join/form numerous groups to secure funding to make thier private investments more valuable using city tax payer dollars.

Fixing the Loft District and converting it into a resdential area only benefits two people.

THe building developers and the people moving into those units.

THe city is left with making it livable with parks and schools and policing and streetscape.

and with a limited pool of money, new high wealth residents seem to be experts at obtaining those limited funds over impoverished residential areas.

Like how SPruce and Pine were repaved and restriped for bikers at the cost of severval million.

While rec centers in North Philly lack funtional bathrooms.

[eldondre]

renovating an existing building raises property values, lowers the city's costs. it's located adjacent to center city, a few blocks from the subway, close to highways. there are charter schools nearby, daycare not too far away, and existing schools should anyone have children.
there was once a time when your posts added value but they are increasingly illogical. spruce and pine were due for repaving anyway, so the incremental cost of bike lanes was $0. btw, this is north philly, so people moving in help fix up north philly.

[desolate]

renovating an existing building raises property values, lowers the city's costs. it's located adjacent to center city, a few blocks from the subway, close to highways. there are charter schools nearby, daycare not too far away, and existing schools should anyone have children.
there was once a time when your posts added value but they are increasingly illogical. spruce and pine were due for repaving anyway, so the incremental cost of bike lanes was $0. btw, this is north philly, so people moving in help fix up north philly.

and you just don't like not being right and seem oblivious to the cost of anything.

[phillyaggie]

so your problem is with how things run in the city, not with this development per se.

In a dilapidated city like this one, I don't see how more private development dollars can be a bad thing. Nobody is forcibly relocating anyone to this or any other development, away from where they currently live. If people like Matt Ruben of Spring Garden (I have no idea who that is, btw) have so much power in deciding where and/or how city's money is spent, that's a problem of governance, not of private enterprise wanting to service a market.

Everyone should be working on streamlining the development, zoning, funding, processes so that developers know exactly what's what, residents know where development will likely happen, and city can prioritize its funding appropriately. I have no quarrel with fixing the system. In fact, the sooner, the better. As such, in the current system, people find ways to weasel in and benefit from a public good. That doesn't mean the good is a waste. You're more than welcome to use Pine and Spruce Streets at any time of day or night, as you please. Heck, you may even bike on them at your pleasure!

[eldondre]

and you just don't like not being right and seem oblivious to the cost of anything.

in your opinion, which is increasingly baseless. all of your statements in that post are baseless if not outright lies. your cost estimates are absurd from someone who should know better

[phillyaggie]

by the way, nobody is stopping the downtrodden residents of other parts of this city to demand better service or more efficiency from their city-- or kick out the bums from city hall, for that matter. Then again, these are the same people who complain about new development happening in their 'hood (a la folks complaining about Temple's building boom) which raises their property values. So if some people want to wallow in their current state while others want to move on, I can't help but cheer on the ones who want to move on.

[phillyaggie]

1. abandoned building at low price goes on the market.

Abandoned property costs this city in lost taxes and then if taken over by the city, in upkeep of it. One less abandoned property = one small win for the city. And why is the building at a "low" price? Market demands it, that's why.

2. speculator buys property, sells units. Walks away.

"speculator" sometimes can also go bankrupt trying to rehab a property they bought "on the cheap" and then trying to sell to unwilling market. If everyone could be in that business, everyone would be, no? It's not like the current recession didn't make great examples of real estate buyers getting trapped, getting bankrupted, getting foreclosed, and basically losing their shirt off their back in the market. Plus, I would rather a "speculator" buys a property, fixes it, and tries to sell it... much better than the real speculators who buy a property, raze it to ground, turn it into parking lot and sit on it for 20 years while hoping for a windfall in a future property boom.


3. City is left to fund, with taxes, all the things to make the new residents happy.

City has to do no such thing. If new residents demand better roads, schools, parks and other social infrastructure than the previous set of residents, that's what I call good citizens who demand service from the city in return for the one of the highest tax burden imposed on them.

4. Money is relocated to suport new whiney, organized residents.

Perhaps money could be better appropriated in the city's budget overall. Perhaps some residents hold their city's feet to the fire and hate to get the feeling of living in some third world country. I don't see that as a bad thing at all.



Fixing the Loft District and converting it into a resdential area only benefits two people.

So what's your solution to it? Keep it the way it is, forlorn looking? Raze it to the ground? For being a part of the Center City, that area sure looks very underwhelming, has had practically no private investments, and like so many other things in this city, does not measure up to its potential. So I'm wondering what you've got up your sleeve to fix that.


While rec centers in North Philly lack funtional bathrooms.

I blame the local residents if things are that bleak. Blame them for keep re-electing same folks. Blame them for not taking care of their own neighborhoods. Blame them for not holding their elected leaders to account. North Philly wasn't always a ghetto, and doesn't need to continue being a ghetto. No part of this city ought to be a terrible ghetto. Yet some parts are, and people continue to live there and when new development edges near, they protest at that change.

my responses are highlighted in blue.

[hammersklavier]

Also this building was bought at an absurdly high, for the area, $5 million, and IIRC had a tax lien on it as of last July. I think the owners were forced to do something with the property to keep it from going to a sheriff's sale; I'll be pleasantly surprised if they're doing the full reno and selling (or renting) units out.

[eldondre]

Also this building was bought at an absurdly high, for the area, $5 million, and IIRC had a tax lien on it as of last July. I think the owners were forced to do something with the property to keep it from going to a sheriff's sale; I'll be pleasantly surprised if they're doing the full reno and selling (or renting) units out.

the article states they will be rental units. the speculator stuff is a desolate fabrication showing his true feelings toward private business.

[Insoluble]

I'm sorry desolate, but saying that the redevelopment of a forlorn vacant building will be bad for the city because it will bring in new residents (the horror!) is more than a bit of a stretch.